Go Back   Defense Technology & Military Forum > Global Defense & Military > Navy & Maritime
Forgot Password? Join Us! Its's free!

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures

ExPB14_JAS-39_Gripen.jpg

ExPB14_Mirage2000.jpg

6_EXPB14_20140729_088_3_RSAF_F16s.jpg

5_EXPB14_20140729_143_3_RSAF_F-15SGs.jpg
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence







Recent Photos - DefenceTalk Military Gallery





Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

This is a discussion on Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates within the Navy & Maritime forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; But like I said, its still more effective than the entire RAAF. Yeah, but you can't take the entire RAAF ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 36 votes, 4.14 average.
Old November 7th, 2007   #796
Defense Professional / Analyst
Master Sergeant
barra's Avatar
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 333
Threads:
Quote:
But like I said, its still more effective than the entire RAAF.
Yeah, but you can't take the entire RAAF out with one torpedo either!!!!

Barra
barra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 7th, 2007   #797
Defense Professional / Analyst
Master Sergeant
barra's Avatar
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 333
Threads:
Quote:
The Navy have their way of doing things, and I expect it would prevail over most of the Army stuff, but I'm biased. A bit.
Well Navy are the senior service Mctaff, they usually get their way. More MRH-90 for Navy is a must though IMO, I reckon they should have a flight of 6-8 airframes on each LHD permanently. Here is a piccy of the Navys first MRH-90 ready for delivery. Like the colour scheme? Looks very Army to me.

Hooroo
Attached Images
File Type: jpg cdph-1119-015edit.jpg (105.1 KB, 27 views)
barra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 7th, 2007   #798
Ship Watcher
Brigadier General
Tasman's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 1,940
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by barra View Post
Well Navy are the senior service Mctaff, they usually get their way. More MRH-90 for Navy is a must though IMO, I reckon they should have a flight of 6-8 airframes on each LHD permanently. Here is a piccy of the Navys first MRH-90 ready for delivery. Like the colour scheme? Looks very Army to me.

Hooroo
Good to see that the airforce agrees that the navy is the senior service!

On a serious note I agree that a decent sized flight of naval MRH-90's should be permanently assigned to each LHD. An alternative might be to develop a 'joint helo squadron' with army and naval personnel assigned which would have a primary role of providing permanent detachments for each LHD. I think we need at least one MRH-90 squadron trained and deployed along the lines of a USMC squadron.

Tas
________________
Learn from the past. Prepare for the future
Tasman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 8th, 2007   #799
Defense Professional / Analyst
Corporal
McTaff's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Ashore
Posts: 158
Threads:
I've seen both colour schemes - the major difference is the 'ARMY' or 'NAVY' written across the top, and the Navy one had a little kangaroo near the back - didn't see it on the Army one, but didn't look close enough.

Kudos on the Senior Service comment (made me laugh!), but although it is somewhat true, the real reasons are simply the Navy has the more comprehensive SI's and polcies regarding the operation of aircraft from flaoting platforms. However, the Army needs cannot be forgotten.

I am wondering who will ultimately be in charge of Air Traffic Control WRT to LHD's.
Will they train up Aircraft Controller Naval Officers to be "full-on" ATC?
Will they import the 'real deal' RAAF ATC personnel?
Will they elevate a FLYCO to the position and leave it there?
Will they simply continue to use SO's?

That'll be a real interesting point.
McTaff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 8th, 2007   #800
Senior Member
Brigadier General
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1,648
Threads:
I would imagine the LHD are all about the navy and the Army all working together. Each ship will have ~1,000 army personel at peak periods, and will have work closely handling army assets and supporting equipment/personel. It will take intergration of the forces to the next level.

While a CSG may be disrupted by a single torpedo, I doubt it would destroy them. Did I mention a CSG is proberly more capable than the entire RAN?
StingrayOZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 8th, 2007   #801
Banned Member
Lieutenant Colonel
No Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,259
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by gf0012-aust View Post
For crying out loud, they are not carriers - they are not bunkeraged for it. You just can't whack a few STOVLs on the deck and call it a Carrier - its a lot more complicated than that.
Designer/builder's site clearly says that provision was made for embarking JSFs. If the Canberra class is built to carry aircraft, then what does one call them? Helicopters are also aircraft although for reasons known to themselves USN calls some of its ships which also carry AV-8Bs LHDs.

For expeditionary purposes small STVOL aircraft have a greater advantage then conventional carriers because they can operate aircraft from unprepared road surface on the shore rather then being limited to the deck, or relying on the ground troops to secure or build a runway. In a sense its the advantage of having a very high combat payload capable helicopter, each F-35B being worth several Army Tigers.

In any case, its a capability that is conspicuous by its omission from the original procurement specifications. That alone should have meant something to the Defence commentators.
FutureTank is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 8th, 2007   #802
Banned Member
Lieutenant Colonel
No Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,259
Threads:
NOT LHDs

People, we are not talking about the USN.
There is not 'LHD' vessel designation in the RAN.
The Canberra class ships are officially designated Large Amphibious Ships - thats LAS.
Not a ward on helicopters in it.
See quote from Defence site below.

Quote:
In view of the planned acquisition of two large amphibious ships of the Canberra class from 2012, it is especially noteworthy that Astute witnessed the first operational deployment of the ADF’s Amphibious Ready Group (ARG), comprising the amphibious transports HMA Ships Kanimbla and Manoora, and heavy landing ship HMAS Tobruk. Acting together these units established an Army Battalion group ashore within three days. Using either of the designs currently proposed for the Canberra class, a similar-sized expedition could be transported in a single lift and landed in a matter of hours.
FutureTank is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 8th, 2007   #803
Super Moderator
General
swerve's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Reading, Berkshire
Posts: 5,491
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by FutureTank View Post
Designer/builder's site clearly says that provision was made for embarking JSFs. If the Canberra class is built to carry aircraft, then what does one call them? ....

The Spanish navy site also clearly says that while Juan Carlos I can operate as a STOVL aircraft carrier, to do so requires the installation of additional equipment, which the Armada is buying (as containerised modules, IIRC) but the RAN isn't. It also states that operating as a carrier is an alternative to operating as an amphibious ship: she's convertible, not multi-role. Has to dock, have the carrier-specific kit installed, then off to sea again as a STOVL carrier. The Armada clearly sees this as a secondary role, as a backup to the Principe de Asturias (and her eventual replacement) for when she's in refit.

I've posted the link to the Armada pages where this is explained a few times.

The talk about a possible carrier role for the Australian ships ignores these uncomfortable facts.
swerve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 8th, 2007   #804
Banned Member
Lieutenant Colonel
No Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,259
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by swerve View Post
The Spanish navy site also clearly says that while Juan Carlos I can operate as a STOVL aircraft carrier, to do so requires the installation of additional equipment, which the Armada is buying (as containerised modules, IIRC) but the RAN isn't. It also states that operating as a carrier is an alternative to operating as an amphibious ship: she's convertible, not multi-role. Has to dock, have the carrier-specific kit installed, then off to sea again as a STOVL carrier. The Armada clearly sees this as a secondary role, as a backup to the Principe de Asturias (and her eventual replacement) for when she's in refit.

I've posted the link to the Armada pages where this is explained a few times.

The talk about a possible carrier role for the Australian ships ignores these uncomfortable facts.
Is the link to the Spanish site?
FutureTank is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 8th, 2007   #805
Super Moderator
General
swerve's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Reading, Berkshire
Posts: 5,491
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by FutureTank View Post
Is the link to the Spanish site?
I found it via Google. Can't remember the exact terms now, but BPE, Juan Carlos, Armada - they were probably in there.

It's in Spanish.
swerve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 8th, 2007   #806
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 156
Threads:
Links:

Link to the LHD "Juan Carlos I" in the Official Spanish Navy Website (Spanish Language).

Link to the Navantia-Tenix website (English Language).

Last edited by Gladius; November 8th, 2007 at 07:24 AM.
Gladius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 8th, 2007   #807
Banned Member
Lieutenant Colonel
No Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,259
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by swerve View Post
The Spanish navy site also clearly says that while Juan Carlos I can operate as a STOVL aircraft carrier, to do so requires the installation of additional equipment, which the Armada is buying (as containerised modules, IIRC) but the RAN isn't. It also states that operating as a carrier is an alternative to operating as an amphibious ship: she's convertible, not multi-role. Has to dock, have the carrier-specific kit installed, then off to sea again as a STOVL carrier. The Armada clearly sees this as a secondary role, as a backup to the Principe de Asturias (and her eventual replacement) for when she's in refit.
I did translate the Spanish site when the contract was awarded, and don't recall this being 'clearly stated', however it may have changed so I will look again.

Thanks
FutureTank is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 8th, 2007   #808
Super Moderator
General
swerve's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Reading, Berkshire
Posts: 5,491
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by FutureTank View Post
I did translate the Spanish site when the contract was awarded, and don't recall this being 'clearly stated', however it may have changed so I will look again.

Thanks
From the Armada site (under "Ficha Tecnica")

"Las configuraciones principales para las que ha sido diseñado el buque son:

* Operaciones Anfibias
o Desplazamiento a Plena Carga 27.079 Tn
o Velocidad Máxima Sostenida 19,5 Nudos

* Operaciones Aereas
o Desplazamiento a Plena Carga 24.660 Tn
o Velocidad Máxima Sostenida 21 Nudos"

Looks differently configured.

The Armada site has been changed, & I can't find the pages which described the "convertible" nature of the ship. Nor on the Navantia site. But I clearly remember them stating that for Operaciones Aereas suitable mission modules (unspecified) would need to be fitted in the cargo deck. I presume that could be done pretty quickly, but it was clearly a bit more than just loading cargo.
swerve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 8th, 2007   #809
Banned Member
Lieutenant Colonel
No Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,259
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by swerve View Post
From the Armada site (under "Ficha Tecnica")

"Las configuraciones principales para las que ha sido diseñado el buque son:

* Operaciones Anfibias
o Desplazamiento a Plena Carga 27.079 Tn
o Velocidad Máxima Sostenida 19,5 Nudos

* Operaciones Aereas
o Desplazamiento a Plena Carga 24.660 Tn
o Velocidad Máxima Sostenida 21 Nudos"

Looks differently configured.

The Armada site has been changed, & I can't find the pages which described the "convertible" nature of the ship. Nor on the Navantia site. But I clearly remember them stating that for Operaciones Aereas suitable mission modules (unspecified) would need to be fitted in the cargo deck. I presume that could be done pretty quickly, but it was clearly a bit more than just loading cargo.
This is just a 1.5knot change in speed and a small displacement change for cargo. I'm not sure how this small change in speed affects operation of aircraft other then possible larger wind speed envelope during operations.
The lower displacement is to be expected since aircraft would bring with them service equipment, ordnance stores and of course fuel and personnel (though not that many).

I'm mystified by the suggestion of mission modules being fitted to the deck that would radically change configuration or would require substantial deck design modifications. If the design is flexible, and future conversion of the design by the user is taken into consideration, then this should be a matter of modestly inconvenient retrofit, possibly one that can be performed without even having to sail back to Spain.

In any case, I will have another look.
FutureTank is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 8th, 2007   #810
Super Moderator
General
swerve's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Reading, Berkshire
Posts: 5,491
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by FutureTank View Post
This is just a 1.5knot change in speed and a small displacement change for cargo. I'm not sure how this small change in speed affects operation of aircraft other then possible larger wind speed envelope during operations.
The lower displacement is to be expected since aircraft would bring with them service equipment, ordnance stores and of course fuel and personnel (though not that many).

I'm mystified by the suggestion of mission modules being fitted to the deck that would radically change configuration or would require substantial deck design modifications. If the design is flexible, and future conversion of the design by the user is taken into consideration, then this should be a matter of modestly inconvenient retrofit, possibly one that can be performed without even having to sail back to Spain.
Nobody has suggested radical changes to configuration or any - let alone substantial - deck design modifications. We're talking about the same ship, the same physical object, performing different roles - but at different times, requiring a minor re-configuration (fitting of role-specific equipment, fixing shut the dock) for the change of role. We're not talking about rebuilding, but the fitting of removable equipment in space that would be used for other purposes when operating in an amphibious role. It could certainly be done in Australia.

The view I was contrasting this with is that the ships Australia is buying are immediately usable as aircraft carriers, & can operate F-35B while functioning as amphibious ships. Also, it's been claimed that they're fully capable aircraft carriers, on a par with or better than Cavour. Strange idea.

BTW, none of this is meant as a criticism of the design. To this amateur, it looks ideal for Spains needs & budget (a clever way to maintain air operations with only one dedicated carrier), & well-suited to the role I think the RAN wants it for.
swerve is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:08 AM.